/prog/rider's secret society

We should create a club/lodge for programmers. If stonemasons created one many years ago just because they knew how to carve stupid stones and build some basic structures, why we still don't have one?
This is what we need:
◦ A symbol.
◦ A secret handshake.
◦ A set of rules.
◦ An unknown leader.
◦ An unknown sub-leader.
◦ A library with exceptional computer books, a printed version of world4ch's /prog/ (aka The Old Testament), ancient computers, and other relics.
◦ A list of heretic languages carved in stone.

>>47
You can have a REPL-less Lisp system.

The REPL is not what defines a Lisp system, and it is certainly not what defines a Lisp operating system.

A Lisp system can have no text at all. The syntax of Lisp is defined as a syntax on Lisp objects, not on text. A different (i.e. non textual) representation of objects is possible, and this was done on Genera; the scheme was later standardized into CLIM (note text is still used, but some objects are not text).

I can imagine a Lisp system where I write my programs by arranging squares and triangles.

A skin deep similar system (i.e. just the conclusion) is the Mathematica notebook today.

Home directories, users, files, and so on are UNIX concepts. There have been fileless Lisp systems (e.g. Interlisp). In a fileless system, UNIX concepts of ownership make no sense; capabilities are a better fit.

Smalltalk systems are fileless to this day (with notable exceptions).

Think about what files are... they're utterly stupid are they not?

Lisp compiles to pretty fast machine code these days. You can inline assembly and disassemble programs trivially. If you make the Lisp look like C then it's usually a bit slower or a bit faster than the corresponding C. There's room for improvement. I'd like to see more JIT approaches with regards to dynamic uses.